- second wave shipping expected to start beginning of November
- final wave shipping expected to start beginning of December

No information on how large the second and third wave will be, though.

Antti Saarnio on Jolla Blog wrote:

...
Where is the Jolla Tablet?

While Sailfish OS 2.0 was delivered successfully, we have not succeeded in delivering the Jolla Tablet on time to our Indiegogo contributors, and we will miss the schedule for our pre-order customers, too. We have faced numerous challenges, ranging from issues with component deliveries, to component issues with the display (we’ve kept you up to date with all the challenges we’ve faced with the display), to securing manufacturing time slots from the factory. All these put together have contributed to a domino effect, negatively impacting assembly and shipment timeline of the Jolla Tablet.

On behalf of my team and myself, I would like to apologize for this. This is not a formal apology on paper – this is a deep, sincere apology combined with a Japanese style bow with my forehead touching the floor.

There are many reasons for these unexpected delays, but rather than provide you with more justification – as valid as it may be – we instead wish to share with you our current Jolla Tablet delivery roadmap.
...

Edit:
According to feedback on the two mentioned platforms, most of the native apps (including warehouse) don't install yet as they are compiled for ARM and not Intel hardware.

No big surprise as new SDK came out quite late and also without much noise about it.
I wonder how many developers have actually realised that their apps are not working on the tablet without new compile run?

According to feedback on the two mentioned platforms, most of the native apps (including warehouse) don't install yet as they are compiled for ARM and not Intel hardware.

No big surprise as new SDK came out quite late and also without much noise about it.

I wonder how many developers have actually realised that their apps are not working on the tablet without new compile run?

Fragmenting such a tiny platform isn't the wisest thing to do. I wonder if there were no ARM based alternatives for the tablet. When a huge company with lots of products supports multiple architectures then it is understandable, but a company with TWO devices and EACH of them on a different architecture is really an exaggeration. Even with the Jolla phone alone they weren't able to provide decent developer support, so now with two separate targets it will look even worse.

Not to mention that it will also have a further negative impact on the number of apps, as some people certainly won't bother to recompile their apps for the platform that they don't have, which means that some apps will only be available for ARM (phone) but not Intel (tablet), and some others only for the tablet but not phone.

P.S. I wonder if the Jolla store is ready to support two architectures (i.e. only show to the user apps combatible with his device) and if not then how long it will take them to do it.

However, Jolla will have to tackle the app deficit before it gets a breakthrough hit. There was more than one occasion where I asked, "Well, now what?" after using the tablet for only a short while -- I'd already run out of things to do. That's no good for a market where many simply assume that an app exists for whatever they need. While Android compatibility is a decent crutch in the short term, Jolla needs to attract enough native apps that this device appeals to more than just early adopters and first-timers. If that happens, the Jolla Tablet could easily live up to its potential.

Well, we know this of course, like with the phone: lack of native apps.

Seems like a decent review.
He mentions lack of native Twitter and Youtube apps - as there are such apps for the phone, this shows that really number of native apps for the tablet must still be lower than for the phone due to Intel processor.

I don't understand why the new SDK couldn't have been published long before the release of the tablet...

Btw.: The reviewer mentions he has "been living with the tablets for a few weeks now".
So in addition to the unspecified number of "special developers" also some review devices must have been sent out.
Since there were no earlier reviews of the tablet, I assume there was also some sort of NDA that didn't allow engadget& co. to publish review earlier than first shipping to "normal" users.

While Android compatibility is a decent crutch in the short term, Jolla needs to attract enough native apps that this device appeals to more than just early adopters and first-timers.

I've been saying this since early 2013 but Jolla just doesn't care. And they refuse to understand that the only way to have a decent number of apps is to let developers earn money on them. Otherwise, it'll always be just that handful of hobbyists developing for fun.

And this Intel vs. ARM situation only makes things worse. As I wrote, I wonder if there were no ARM based alternatives for the tablet. Supporting multiple architectures is a good thing, but at a slightly later stage, not when the company has just two products and each of them on a different architecture.

Anyway, just like Engadged correctly wrote, either they quickly do something about availability of native apps, or their tablet will remain a product for a tiny niche, just like their phone has been (for the very same reason).

I would prefer ARM myself if I wanted a tablet. I think ARM devices has a nicer tradeoff between performance and battery life than x86. ARM has fewer machine instructions, but on the other hand support CPU cores of different type so can have one powerhungry powerful and one energy efficient and weak and turn them on/off as needed.

It is hard to make laptops with arm because there is lots of software you won't get ported over easily, but phones and tablets doesn't really have the same requirement of backwards compatibility, especially if it's a new product that breaks compatibility with their own ecosystem to add compatibility with something else for unknown reasons.

I need a phone, but I don't need any tablet. I would be quite happy if they made an e-reader device though. I spend way more time reading books on my e-reader than I look at my smartphone. Charging it a few times a month. Apps for e-readers are still new and exciting, so it would actually work both with or without app store, although an app store would probably make them grow quite fast.

Lots of companies (or simply: an overwhelming majority) make ARM-based tablets... So the choice of existing chipsets, whole PCB reference designs, peripherals they work with (displays, batteries, storage media, etc.) is really huge.

I guess that the Intel tablet was simply cheaper and easier to get. It's probably like with the WeTab, i.e. Intel makes the whole tablet and delivers a finished product to which Jolla only installs their software...

If so then they did it simply to earn more money on it. At the expense of further complicating their native software availability situation. Question is if due to lack of absolutely ANY native apps (even those available for the phone, as clearly hardly anyone bothered to recompile them for the tablet so far) they won't sell considerably less tablets, i.e. earn less and not more.

Anyway, regardless of all this mess, the most important thing they should do is finally release a finished, fully polished SDK and support for paid apps. Without these two things they'll remain such a niche forever.

The Intel chipset for mobile is a disaster when it comes to power consumption so it is not a coincident that almost all choose ARM. Now, Intel is heavily undercutting the price compared to Qualcomm as they desperately want a piece of the mobile market but even that doesn't help.

With tablets, then x86 is starting to become possible as the battery is bigger but manufacturers have invested so much in ARM platforms so it is difficult to break that tradition now. Also, the ARM performance is on par with x86 right now so Intel has no selling point other than price.

The reason that Jolla chose the x86 platform is probably because the history. Meego was initially a joint venture between Intel and Nokia. The contacts was then inherited by Jolla. Qualcomm probably didn't care too much about Jolla as they are a too small customer. Qualcomm was really a fallback solution. Jolla was initially supposed to use a platform from ST-Ericsson but that company went to bust.

The Intel chipset for mobile is a disaster when it comes to power consumption

It has always been like that with Intel. The WeTab does not even have a proper "Power Off" state - it eats battery like crazy even when shut down completely. Turn it off fully charged and a week later the battery will be nearly empty, doing nothing in the meantime.

Quote:

The reason that Jolla chose the x86 platform is probably because the history. Meego was initially a joint venture between Intel and Nokia.

I think they chose it for the reasons you mentioned earlier, i.e. price. Look, Nokia N1 is the very same device. Intel simply sells it cheaper than anyone else. And you get a product ready to sell, you only need to flash it with your OS.

Biggest obstacle was that they decided to switch to another display because the original one didn't meet their needs.
There is an interesting blog post on Jolla's official blog on how that lead to complications, switching to a third display which had a different interface that again needed modification to other components which lead to more delay.

Well, I don't know how it is now, but it was like that with the WeTab. When I asked the WeTab guys to send me their tablet for review, I got it directly from Intel (from Kontich, Belgium), so it looked like if Intel was not only manufacturing but also distributing them.

Quote:

If that is the case why were there so many delays?

We don't know if the delays have anything to do with the hardware. The Nokia N1 is the same device and it's been available for months...

Quote:

Biggest obstacle was that they decided to switch to another display because the original one didn't meet their needs.

If that's true... At least some of their excuses don't seem reliable, e.g. that support for payments in their app store is so difficult to make that "they've been working hard on it for 2 years and they still can't say how long it will take them"...

Posting/discussing/exchanging warez/cracks/serial numbers/links to web sites offering such resources and/or any other illegal contentis FORBIDDEN on this forum and results in an immediate BAN.

Symbian and all Symbian-based marks and logos are trade marks of Symbian Software Limited.This website is not in any way endorsed or supported by Symbian Software Limited. (C) 2001 My-Symbian.com All Rights Reserved